01a54172
09-09-2005
Mary Ann Raczka v. United States Postal Service
01A54172
September 9, 2005
.
Mary Ann Raczka,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A54172
Agency No. 4B-140-0021-05
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final
decision (FAD) by the agency dated May 19, 2005, finding that it was in
compliance with the terms of the February 11, 2005 settlement agreement
into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. �
1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
[Manager] will convene a meeting to discuss work and construction issues
and updates. This meeting will be held every two weeks at first and
more or less frequently thereafter as needed.
No contractual issues will be discussed. No personal or interpersonal
issues will be discussed. The focus of the meeting will be on business
decisions and their impact on the VMF department.
Time: 2:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. Attendance will be voluntary. Overtime will
be allowed at the discretion of the employees' supervisors.
Participants will include general office workers, both clerical and
general mechanics, and both shift supervisors.
Items for the agenda shall be submitted to the shift supervisors no
later than the day prior to the meeting.
By letters to the agency dated April 19, 2005 and May 9, 2005, complainant
alleged that the agency was in breach of the settlement agreement and
requested that the agency reinstate her EEO complaint. Specifically,
complainant alleged that the agency failed to schedule regular meetings
after the first three meetings and that Manager did not attend the
third meeting. She further alleged that the agreement was violated by
Manager's poor communication skills.
In its May 19, 2005 FAD, the agency concluded that the settlement
agreement had not been breached. The FAD noted that more than three
meetings were held and that the agreement did not address Manager's
communication skills or style.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement
agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at
any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties.
The Commission has held that a settlement agreement constitutes a
contract between the employee and the agency, to which ordinary rules
of contract construction apply. See Herrington v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). The Commission has further
held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract,
not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction.
Eggleston v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795
(August 23, 1990). In ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard
to the terms of a settlement agreement, the Commission has generally
relied on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon O v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991). This rule states
that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face,
its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument
without resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. See Montgomery
Elevator Co. v. Building Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, we find that the agency did not breach the February
11, 2005 settlement agreement. The record contains an affidavit from
Manager indicating that the first meeting was held on February 17, 2005,
and meetings were held thereafter on March 3, March 17, March 31, May 5,
May 25, June 9, and June 23. Manager indicated that no meetings were held
between March 31, 2005 and May 5, 2005 because there was a temporary lull
in construction, and there was nothing new to discuss. Manager also
indicated that he did not attend the March 31, 2005 meeting because
he was on vacation. Manager noted that the meetings were continuing
to be held and would continue as long as necessary. With respect to
Manager's communication skills, while the terms of the agreement require
Manager to schedule meetings, the agreement does not address Manager's
communication skills. If the complainant wanted the agreement to address
Manager's communication skills, she was free to negotiate with the agency
to include a provision addressing Manager's communication skills in the
settlement agreement. See Jenkins-Nye v. General Service Administration,
EEOC Appeal No. 01851903 (March 4, 1987).
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no breach of the settlement
agreement is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States
District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you
receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as
the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official agency head
or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and
official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your
case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization,
and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 9, 2005
__________________
Date